Metrics like line pairs per millimeter, or TV lines per picture height are often cited in spec sheets.
Yes, shifting from a vertical to horizontal axis reference in quoting resolution is misleading to say the least.
I am not sure that I would agree that within the motion media industry a one dimensional figure for resolution is always assumed. Due to differing aspect ratios, various imaging technologies (3 CCD vs 1 CMOS with Bayer mask), scans of analog records vs digital clones, etc I think both dimensions need to be expressed for meaningful comparisons.
In terms of the genuine resolution of the F65 it is my understanding that they reached that 17MP number by having 8,192 photo sites horizontal and 2,160 vertical in their Q67 rotated bayer-ish mask tech. After processing, it creates a 4,096 by 2,160 image that is touted as full 4K. I would expect it to resolve fairly close to a 5K FF 5,120 by 2,700 Epic frame de-mosaiced and down sampled to 4,096 by 2,160 (yes, that would include some cropping due to aspect ratio differential). In terms of zone plate resolution testing the 5K FF Epic frame should exceed 3,800 horizontal even in the most conservative evaluation assuming a high quality electro-optical-processing pathway. Even if the F65 manages to exceed that slightly, I don't expect the pure test chart resolution metric to be much of a differentiator between the two systems. Optical low pass filtering, internal processing of the data set provided by the sensor, shutter artifacts, compression, decoding algorithms, etc are much more likely to delineate the "look" and perceived resolution of the respective systems. I am expecting something like the difference between LCOS and DLP, but until we can directly compare in a butterfly (split screen) on a serious display that's just conjecture.
If you are talking about an 8K system like the NHK UHD implementation, that's a different beast. FWIW, if/when NHK's 8K standard reaches widespread use I would expect 4K digital material and high res scans of modern film stocks (particularly EI 250 or less) to look quite nice, particularly with next generation uprez tech. OTOH, I would expect 1080 material to require extremely effective uprez routines to avoid looking soft. Time will tell...
Cheers - #19